ML20126K327
| ML20126K327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/15/1979 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126K250 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-80-336 NUDOCS 8105120546 | |
| Download: ML20126K327 (3) | |
Text
y.. ' *.
~~~.:. : ::.. ; *
^
.y....., "
, e.
.y
.3
- e..e e s.
e
.. t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON
)
WASHINGT ON. D. C. 2C555 s.
...p -,;
6 Hid /.:
.'.p.3Rj
?
February 15, 1979 W
""~'
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Commissioner Ahearne g
THRU:
Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director N'N b~
for Operations FROM:
William J. Dircks, Director Office of t'uclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
TARAPUR - ADEQUACY OF SAFEGUARDS (U)
In your memorandum of February 13, 1979, you requested information
%. cf concerning NMSS's position on the adequacy of safeguards at Tarapur.
Q At the outset, I would like to point out that the NMSS stated positions regarding the effectiveness of IAEA safeguards in India are not related solely to tha reactor facilities at Tarapur, but relate jointly to the fuel facility at Hjderabad and the reactors.
The material involved in the export under consideration will go to the fuel facility for fabrica-tion of the reactor fuel.
The NMSS views of the effectivenet s of IAEA safeguards in-India were expressed both in the Commission pap 3r
.x j SECY 73-596A, and in the staff testimony from Joanna Becker to
%:.9 Sam Chilk dated January 11, 1979.
The NMSS conclusion was ttat the
' 4;l available information on I AEA implementation is not sufficient to permit NMSS to evaluate the effectiveness of IAEA safeguards in India.
(U)
The intent of NMSS's statements was to emphasize the fact that NMSS needed more specific information in order to make judgments about the effectivewss of IAEA safeguards in India.
Although the SIR identifies types of Qficiencies, it does' not provide details concerning the nature of the deficiencies.
In this regard, in an NMSS response to an IP
- M request for input into the staff testimony (December 22, 1978, re:no ra r.dm T-@
f rom T. S. Sherr to Gerald G. Oplinger), NMSS indicated:
in order to conpletely satisfy your request for our co:nnents on "the adequacy, for curposes of NRC's determination under NNPA of the safeguards applied by the International Atcmic Energy Agency at the Tarapur facility, and of U.S. government informa-tion on these safeguards", we would like a copy of all pertinent g.j information your office may.have on the subject. Additionally.
please request the Executive Branch to provide us sny infonnation
%a,
having a bearing on the application of IAEA safeguards in India.
NMSS was subsequently advised by IP staff tnat no additional information was available on the application of I AEA safeguards in India.
I.:[* s // b M ha o ~ %:'m v 8105120$%
.4 0 Sy
>r->--
__j Occbcsdy
-...s....,.g
?u, /*
n
cr cn y Rvkw (D.de c: E. "id e
i.
c t,..::;.
r
.n.
n... g c e..,e Ch t kr : f.! /;.f_/. f.;,
_- -n
......-W
,Mi~ ~
l L---
.s
- 3.. ;~ c..7.,...
..,..:.;.. J. :.:...i.' f-
.:j m.
^
.. s
~*
{.r.;.,o
- [.l! 3j 3
- t...:.:.......... -
7 2_
w
,r -
- cMi
?!M:;.3 v
?Pij:I
.... t. J
>.w I
I
(
,t
., e. :.:
4ht M**
. C.5: :
W;.?
... ~,.
ce,..
- !:;-jg j":e
- I.9 e
e ;a..!
m:e 3 n
(19!?.a?
p.m M
b (U)
Our response to your sRcific questions is as follows:
1.
Is it correct that I; MSS was familiar with the statements
.,, a concerning the adequacy of, safeguards made by Mr. Leventhal 1, y! -
in his testimony before. Congress during its hearings on the f6 last Tarapur license?
,.a b.m l
i
.. l l
AK-
,r {; -. - -... - r.; *,,
s a..
. * =..
-/,: ";
"**+3.-......g. :
D4 l
l
.., - _... ~. _ -..... - -,. - - ------ -
..$..~..w %. ;.
.s.
- a.
~
..P e
(h
'(
f j
r
- r 3-p;j A.
- +:44,
!NSS was familiar with the statements uade by Cr. Myanthal in his tcstinony bcfore Congress during its hearings on the a.i:t last Tarapur license.
His statements relating to cameras ar.c:
seals represent the only information not already available to
!! MSS through the SIR.
With regard to the statements concerning 2
cameras and seals, we were not a<. care that the Executive Branch responses to Mr. Levarthal's assertions were still in questior..
As indicated above, the SIR did not indicate any specific problems at the rcactor facilities.
Ilowever, the lack of mention in the SIR is the only information that we are aware of that would substantiate State Department's assertions regarding cameras and seals.
2.
Is there any information beyond that found in the letter from flye
- cd to Glenn dated June 15, 1978 (in response to the Levanthal testi-I@;%
many), the letter from fiosenzo to Shea dated September 4'Z 12, 1978 (concerning cameras and seals), and the notes transmitted by
"]
flosenzo to the IJRC February 6, 1979 (concerning the followup letter from Levanthal to Glenn) which relates to the levanthal concerns?
A.
f; MSS also reviewed the letter of June 22, 1978, from Mr. Levanthal to Senator Glenn as well as fir, fiosenzo's J;.]
letter of December 19, 1978, which provided information 3
with regard to the use of cameras at Tarapur in 1977.
7: 1 mn 3.
h'ould it be correct to assume imSS considered the Levanthal statements and related information in reaching its position?
A.
Yes.
f; MSS's conclusions regarding the effectiveness of IAEA safeguards in India were based on the inforr.ation in the 1976 SSIR and 1977 SIR docur.ents, and the information included in N
the various correspondence concerning cameras and seals in India as identified above. However, IdSS assumed that the
- N i 9
Executive Cranch responses to Mr. Levanthal's concerns had resolved the camera and seal issues.
m w
Yb. v gd
~ J!illiam J. Dircks, Director p]
)
Office of t;uclear Materia k Xb.
Safety and Safeguards s.
M I
I i
1 4
j 13
-...... z_
.*~
m u_...
.. - -...